Re: Storing Video's or vedio file in DB.

On 12/17/2014 07:37 PM, Arthur Silva wrote:
> This! I'm surprised it took so long to somebody suggest an object store.

I thought they did, a file system:)

>
> On Dec 17, 2014 9:22 PM, "Jonathan Vanasco" <postgres(at)2xlp(dot)com
> <mailto:postgres(at)2xlp(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>
> I wouldn't even store it on the filesystem if I could avoid that.
> Most people I know will assign the video a unique identifier (which
> is stored in the database) and then store the video file with a 3rd
> party (e.g. Amazon S3).
>
> 1. This is often cheaper. Videos take up a lot of disk space.
> Having to ensure 2-3 copies of a file as a failover is not fun.
> 2. It offloads work from internal servers. Why deal with
> connections that are serving a static file if you can avoid it?
>
> In terms of FS vs DB (aside from the open vs streaming which was
> already brought up)
>
> I think the big issue with storing large files in the database is
> the input/output connection.
> Postgres has a specified number of max connections available, and
> each one has some overhead to operate. Meanwhile, a server like
> nginx can handle 10k connections easily, and with little or no
> overhead. While the speed is comparable to the OS, you end up using
> a resource from a limited database connection pool. And you run the
> risk of a slow/dropped client tying up the connection.
> Why allocate a resource to these operations, when there are more
> lightweight alternatives that won't tie up a database connection ?
>
>
>
> --

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com